Strangely, I could argue that none are, AND all are "violations of free speech."
You see, freedom of expression is a two way street. Those who wish to "express" under such freedoms are able to do so, meanwhile those who don't wish to listen to such expression are also free to do so.
However, IMO
the problem is being bogged down with the idea that freedom of expression is a right being granted by the Constitution under the 1st Amendment, and thus only a bar against government censorship. This misses the point entirely, as the issue is not simply one where it can be "enforced" by government power, but rather an ideal of general freedom which should be embraced by society as a whole.
Thus IMO whenever ANY actor seeks to suppress speech it does not like, that should be considered a violation of freedom of speech.
There are all sorts of methods to respond to speech one does not like, the easiest being simply voting with one's feet...i.e. not listening, watching, or participating. I do that quite often here in this Forum.
Thus one could argue that all three actions are simply "voting with one's feet."
ON the other hand the problem with many who claim that social media, acting as "private companies" may ban or otherwise inhibit expression with impunity undermines the original views that such "media" are the new "marketplace of ideas." You know, the argument used when Twitter prevented President Trump from blocking responses to his Tweets way back when? A "privilege" still accorded to "non-political" members of that "marketplace."
So IMO all three are tacit, if not explicit violations of free speech.